Physicochemical composition and sensory quality evaluation of capon
and rooster meat
Andr´
e Amorim,
∗Sandra Rodrigues,
∗,†Etelvina Pereira,
∗and Alfredo Teixeira
∗,‡,1∗Agriculture School of Polytechnic Institute of Bragan¸ca, Campus de Santa Apol´onia, Apartado 1172, 5301–855 Bragan¸ca, Portugal; †Mountain Research Center (CIMO), Bragan¸ca, Portugal; and‡Veterinary and Animal
Research Center (CECAV) University of Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Quinta de Prados, Apartado 1013, 5001–801 Vila Real, Portugal
ABSTRACT The aim of the present study was to
evaluate the effect of caponization on the physicochem-ical and sensory characteristics of rooster and capon meat (2 Portuguese autochthonous chicken breeds of roosters: Amarela and Pedrˆes), raised under the same production. The birds were castrated at 9 wk of age and bred until 140 d of age. Forty Amarela (20 roosters and 20 capons—castrated male) and 40 Pedrˆes Por-tuguesa (20 roosters and 20 capons) breed chickens, 5 free-range chickens, and 5 broilers were used. From the breast, leg, and wing muscles, physicochemical param-eters such as pH, water activity (aw), physical color, moisture content, ash, CP, pigments, collagen, and to-tal fat and fatty acids profile, were analyzed accord-ing to standard procedures. Caponization did not af-fect pH, aw, lightness (L∗), yellowness (b∗), ash, pro-tein, collagen, saturated fatty acids (SFA), polyunsatu-rated fatty acids (PUFA), and the ratio of unsatupolyunsatu-rated fatty acids (UFA)/SFA. Results show that caponization decreased (P ≤ 0.05) moisture content and increased
(P ≤ 0.05) pigments and intramuscular fat content. Capons showed higher (P ≤ 0.001) redness (a∗) and chroma (C∗), and lower (P ≤ 0.001) hue (H∗) com-pared to roosters. Caponization increased (P ≤ 0.05) monounsaturated fatty acids content and PUFA/SFA. The main fatty acids found were oleic (C18:1), palmitic (C16:0), and linoleic (C18:2). Capons had greater (P ≤ 0.05) C18:1 content but lower (P ≤ 0.01) butyric acid (C4:0), caprylic acid (C8:0), stearic acid (C18:0), and (P ≤ 0.05) arachidonic acid (C20.4) content than roosters. The objective of sensory analysis was making the comparison of the Amarela and Pedrˆes meat with a free-range chicken and a broiler. Panelists classified the capon meat (Amarela and Pedrˆes) as juicier and less tough and fibrous than rooster meat. Broilers were in general juicier, tenderer, and less fibrous than the other chickens in this study. The results of sensory evaluation complement those obtained in physicochemical analy-sis, suggesting that caponization promotes an overall improvement in meat quality.
Key words: capon, rooster, caponization, physicochemical quality, sensory evaluation
2016 Poultry Science 95:1211–1219 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev448
INTRODUCTION
Currently, consumers demand more variety and high-quality characteristics of different poultry meat prod-ucts. One of these products is the capon (male rooster with surgically removed testes before reaching sexual maturity). Removal of the testicles produces a change in the animal’s metabolism affecting the growth, be-havior, tissue composition, chemical composition, and organoleptic quality of meat (Miguel et al.,2008; Sirri et al.,2009). The principal metabolic effect of caponiza-tion is the increase of fat content—abdominal, subcu-taneous, and intramuscular (Chen et al., 2000; Tor et al., 2002, 2005; Symeon et al., 2010, 2012). This
ef-C
2016 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received July 23, 2015.
Accepted November 19, 2015.
1Corresponding author:teixeira@ipb.pt
fect has improved meat quality (Miguel et al., 2008; Webb and O’Neill,2008; Symeon et al., 2010), enhanc-ing the flavor, texture, and meat juiciness, and makenhanc-ing it more appreciated by consumers than rooster meat of the same age (Chen et al., 2005; Tor et al., 2005). Several authors report significant changes in the fatty acid profile of rooster meat after caponization (Tor et al.,2005; Sirri et al.,2009). A decrease in saturated fatty acids (SFA) and increase in unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) content in capon meat would be bene-ficial for the human diet. The objective of this study was the comparison of the physicochemical composi-tion of capons and roosters (two autochthonous Por-tuguese chicken breeds, Amarela and Pedrˆes), treated under the same conditions until slaughter. The phe-notypic information about these breeds is inconsistent, except for external characteristics such as type of feath-ering, color of paws, crest shape, etc., as described in ge-nealogical books. The Amarela breed roosters present a 1211
feathering of rust to yellow-straw tone. The tail is char-acterized by its jet-black color with glaring metallic greenish blue, and the wings present a jet-black color. The breed Pedrˆes Portuguesa presents plumage with tinted dark gray and white (DGAV, 2013). The study also included a sensory evaluation by a trained taste panel to compare the sensory characteristics of capon and rooster meat with a free-range chicken and broiler.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals were directly acquired to abattoirs as car-casses and we did not experiment with live animals. The research project was approved by the Agro Pro-gram of the INIAP from the Portuguese Agricultural Ministry. All procedures were conducted according to the guidelines of Council Directive 86/609/EEC (Eu-ropean Community,1986) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.
Animals and Sampling
Forty chickens of autochthonous Amarela breed (20 roosters and 20 capons [castrated rooster] and 40 of au-tochthonous Pedrˆes Portuguesa breed (20 roosters and 20 capons) were used. Birds were housed under free-range conditions in one pen of 20 m2with a density of 4 animals per m2. The basal diets were commercial con-centrate (Table1) with ad libitum feed and water. The birds were castrated at 9 wk of age and were slaughtered at 140 d of age in a local commercial broiler slaughter-house.
In sensory analysis, 5 free-range chickens (raised in a free-range system and fed with 70% cereals; mini-mum age of slaughter 81 d and average carcass weight 2.2 kg) and 5 broilers (fast-growing chickens with age of slaughter between 32 and 40 d, fed with commercial feed; average carcass weight 1.6 kg) were purchased in a supermarket with the above-mentioned designations. Carcasses were taken to the Carcass and Meat Technol-ogy and Quality Laboratory of the Agriculture School (Bragan¸ca, Portugal) 24 h after slaughter and were di-vided into halves. The right halves were reserved for physicochemical analysis and the left for sensory anal-ysis. Then all samples were vacuum-packed and frozen at−21◦C until analyzed.
Physical and Chemical Analysis
On the d before physical and chemical analyses, sam-ples were thawed at 4◦C. Physicochemical determina-tions were performed on the breast (pectoralis major muscle), leg (thigh and drumstick), and wing. Meat was dissected separating the skin, meat, and bones. All anal-yses were made in triplicate.
Instrumental Analysis. The measurement of pH 24
h after slaughter in the pectoralis major muscle was performed according to the Portuguese standard NP
Table 1. Chemical composition of the experimental diets.
Diets by age Item 0 to 4 wks 5 to 18 wk Analytical components (%) CP 19.0 15.0 Crude fiber 3.50 3.20 Phosphorus 0.53 0.70 Methionine 0.37 0.20 Sodium 0.20 0.10 Calcium 1.20 1.50 Crude fat 5.00 3.20 Crude ash 6.60 7.00 Lysine 0.99 0.70 Additives Amino acids (mg/Kg)
Hydroxy analogue of methionine1 0.08
L-lysine 48.0
Vitamins (IU/kg)
Vitamin A 12500 15000
Vitamin D3(cholecalciferol) 3000 3000
Vitamin E (dl-α-tocopheryl acetate) 30.0 40.0
Biotin (mg/Kg) 0.20 Trace elements (mg/kg) Cupper2 8.00 11.0 Manganese3 100.0 75.0 Zinc4 80.0 75.0 Iron 515.0a 81.0b Iodine5 0.99 2.00 Cobalt6 0.06 0.50 Selenium7 0.30 0.20
1acids content 85%; acid monomer 65%. 2Cupric sulfate pentahydrate.
3Manganese oxide. 4Zinc oxide.
5Calcium iodate anhydrous.
6Basic cobalt carbonate (II) monohydrate. 7Sodium selenite.
aIron (III) oxide – 425 mg/kg and iron (II) sulphate monohydrate –
90 mg/kg.
bIron (II) carbonat.
3441 (2008) (ISO 2917:1999), using a portable poten-tiometer (HANNA pH meter HI 99163, Woonsocket, RI, USA), equipped with a spear electrode (FC 232D, Woonsocket, RI, USA) penetrator, and calibrated with standard buffers with the following pH 4.01–7.02. Wa-ter activity (aw) was determined using aw probe (Hy-groPalmAw1, rotronic 8303, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) according to AOAC (1990). Meat color was estimated on the pectoralis major muscle and leg and wing mus-cles using the lightness (L∗), redness (a∗), and yellow-ness (b∗) system with a colorimeter Minolta CR-10 (Minolta, Osaka, Japan). This system of color was de-scribed with the coordinates L∗a∗b∗(CIE,1986). Color measurements were made on freshly cut surfaces in s af-ter carcass dissection. Deaf-termination of hue (H∗) and chroma (C∗) attributes was made according to the fol-lowing equations:
H∗= arctan (b∗/a∗). C∗=√(a∗)2+ (b∗)2.
Chemical Analysis. Moisture content
determina-tion was carried out following the Portuguese stan-dard NP 1614 (2002) based on ISO 1442:1197;
samples were dried in a drying oven (Raypa DO-150, Barcelona, Spain) for 24 h at 103◦C ± 2◦C. Ash con-tent was assessed according to the Portuguese stan-dard NP 1615 (2002) corresponding to ISO 936:1998; samples were incinerated at 550◦C ± 25◦C during 5 to 6 h in a muffle furnace (Vulcan BOX Fur-nace Model 3–550, Yucaipa, CA). The determination of protein content was performed according to the Portuguese standard NP 1612 (2002) based on ISO 937:1978 using Digest System K-437 and Sampler Sys-tem Kjeldahl K370 (Flawil, Switzerland). Protein con-tent was determined, multiplying the amount of azote per factor 6.25. Haem pigments were obtained using the reflectance of the exposed surface by spectroscopy by a Spectronic Unicam 20 Genesys (SPECTRONIC 20 GENESYS, Thermofisher Scientific, Austin, Texas, USA). The method is based on the muscle pigment content by Hornsey (1956). Hydroxyproline was de-termined following the Portuguese standard NP 1987 (2002) based on ISO 3496:1994; samples were hy-drolyzed in an oven (Raypa DO-150, Barcelona, Spain) at 105oC for 16 h. The absorbance was measured at 558 nm using the equipment Spectronic Unicam 20 Genesys (Unicam, USA) and total collagen content was calculated by multiplying the amount of hydrox-yproline by 8. Fat determination was performed using the B ¨UCHI Fat Determination System (AOAC Interna-tional) described by Teixeira and Rodrigues (2013). It consists of the Extraction Unit B-815 (Flawil, Switzer-land) for simultaneous extraction/saponification of the fatty acids, and the Fat Determination B-820 (Flawil, Switzerland), which determines fat content based on the isolated fatty acids (total SFA, to-tal monounsaturated fatty acids [MUFA] and toto-tal polyunsaturated fatty acids [PUFA]) by means of gas chromatography.
Sensory Analysis
Sensory analysis of breast, thigh, and drumstick sam-ples of Amarela and Pedrˆes breed roosters and capons, respectively, and of free-range chickens and broilers, was made by a trained taste panel of 9 members. Panel members were selected and trained according to Portuguese guidelines (NP-ISO-8586-1:2001 based on ISO 8586-1:1993). On the d before the sensory session, samples were thawed at 4◦C. Samples were separated into breast, thigh, and drumstick, then dissected and deboned. Samples were wrapped individually in alu-minum foil and coded randomly with 3-digit numbers, then placed in the oven until it reached an internal tem-perature of around 75oC (NP-ISO-8586-1 2001 - ISO 8586-1:1993). Immediately after cooking, samples were divided into 2× 2 × 1 cm3pieces, wrapped in aluminum foil, identified, placed in a preheated oven at 60 to 70◦C, and evaluated within 10 min. The panel members were seated in individual booths in a temperature and light controlled room. In all sessions, the room temperature
was 20 to 22◦C, with 60 to 70% humidity and booths had red light.
After a training period of 6 sessions evaluating, de-scribing, and discussing chicken meat quality charac-teristics, panelists were asked to assess each sample for the sensory attribute: odor intensity (odor associated with raw meat, animal species, or cooked chicken meat), off-odor (an odor that is not natural or up to stan-dard owing to deterioration or contamination) intensity, color (color perceived between whitish and yellowish), toughness (the force needed to chew), juiciness (wa-ter perceived during mastication), fibrousness (fibers perceived during mastication), taste intensity (taste of raw meat, associated with the animal species, or cooked chicken meat), off-taste intensity, flavor intensity (fla-vor associated with raw meat, animal species, or cooked chicken meat), and off-flavor intensity. An unstructured scale of 10 cm, anchored at the extremes (0 - sensa-tion absence, and 10 - extremely intense sensasensa-tion) was used. Panelists were asked to indicate a point on the scale corresponding to the perceived intensity for each attribute. The sensory evaluation consisted of 10 ses-sions. In each session panelists evaluated 9 samples cor-responding to 9 of the 18 different treatments combin-ing breed (Amarela, Pedrˆes), caponization (capon and rooster), free-range chicken and broiler, and anatomical part (breast, thigh, and drumstick). Samples were al-ways presented in the same conditions for all panelists, randomly in each session.
Statistical Analysis
Physical and chemical Analysis. The data were
analyzed according to a 2× 2 factorial design using the GLM procedure of SPSS statistical package version 20. Data were analyzed by ANOVA with sex and breed as fixed effects. Average values of carcass were obtained from the sum of different anatomical parts (breast, leg, and wing). The least square means were calculated and the Tukey test was used to determine significant differ-ences. All statistical differences were considered signif-icant at a level of P≤ 0.05.
Sensory Analysis. The model used was a
com-pletely randomized factorial design with 6 groups of chickens (Amarela capon, Amarela rooster, Pedrˆes capon, Pedrˆes rooster, free-range chicken, and broiler) considering the carcass as a whole (average of sum of the breast, thigh, and drumstick), as fixed factors, and no random effects. A sensory profile for the differ-ent chicken meat was developed by a Generalized Pro-crustes analysis (GPA). GPA is a powerful multivariate technique extensively used in sensory evaluation. The analysis minimizes differences among assessors, identi-fies agreement among them, and summarizes the sets of 3-dimensional data (objects, characteristics, and asses-sors). The data matrices of 6 (groups of chickens) by 10 (sensory attributes) for the 9 assessors were matched to
Table 2. Effect of sex and breed on carcass weight, physicochemical composition of chicken meat.
Sex (S) Breed (B) Significance
Item1 Capons (n = 20) Roosters (n = 20) Amarela (n = 20) Pedrˆes (n = 20) SEM S B S∗B
Carcass weight (kg) 3.204 3.170 2.992 3.366 0.01 NS NS NS Physical composition pH24 5.81 5.83 5.84 5.81 0.01 NS NS NS Water activity 0.949 0.951 0.949 0.941 0.00 NS NS NS Color parameters lightness (L∗) 49.9 50.23 49.0 51.1 0.22 NS ∗∗∗ NS redness (a∗) 12.9 9.23 15.4 7.24 0.31 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗ yellowness (b∗) 11.1 11.8 10.4 12.4 0.13 NS ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Hue (H∗) 45.9 55.8 37.5 62.8 0.84 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Chroma (C∗) 18.3 15.7 19.4 15.0 0.24 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ NS Chemical composition (%) Moisture 73.5 73.8 74.3 73.1 0.07 ∗ ∗∗∗ ∗ Ash 1.88 1.72 2.26 1.38 0.03 NS ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ CP 22.2 22.1 22.1 22.2 0.10 NS NS NS Pigments 1.11 0.94 0.88 1.16 0.04 ∗ ∗ NS Hydroxyproline 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.01 NS NS NS Collagen 1.21 1.00 1.10 1.12 0.06 NS NS NS IMF 4.19 3.87 3.70 4.35 0.10 ∗ ∗ ∗ 1pH
24= muscle pH 24 h postmortem; IMF = intramuscular fat; NS = not significant;∗= P≤ 0.05;∗∗= P≤ 0.01;∗∗∗= P≤ 0.001.
find a consensus. These data sets were analyzed using XLSTAT software (Addinsoft, 2013a).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Carcass Composition
There were no differences in carcass weight sex or breed effect (Table 2). Tor et al. (2002), Miguel et al. (2008), and Symeon et al. (2010, 2012) did not ob-serve differences for carcass weight between cocks and capons.
Physical and Chemical Composition
The effect of sex and breed on physicochemical com-position of chicken meat can be observed in Table 2. Results show that pH24 and aw value were not af-fected by sex or breed. Also Lin and Hsu (2002), Miguel et al. (2008), Symeon et al. (2010,2012), and Volk et al. (2011) reported that caponization had no effects on pH value. The breed results confirm the research of D´ıaz et al. (2010) and Souza et al. (2011), who found no dif-ferences among breeds (indigenous Mos and Sasso T-44 and X-44; Super Pesad˜ao, Para´ıso Pedrˆes and Cobb, respectively). The pH24 values found were within the expected limits of 5.75 and 5.96 at the end of the post-mortem process according to Castellini et al. (2002) and Qiao et al. (2002).
The Pedrˆes breed presented higher (P ≤ 0.001) L∗, b∗, and H∗, but smaller (P ≤ 0.001) a∗ and C∗ val-ues than Amarela. Capons had significantly greater (P ≤ 0.001) a∗ and C∗ but smaller (P ≤ 0.001) H∗ than roosters. According to the L∗ values reported in the literature on the quality classification of chicken meat (Fletcher,2002; Qiao et al.,2002), the values obtained are of one normal meat. In relation to color parameters, the capon meat differed from the rooster meat only
be-cause of a∗ value. Caponization increased a∗ value in comparison with rooster meat, contradictory to Miguel et al. (2008) who observed lower a∗ value in capons than cocks, but found no differences for L∗and b∗ val-ues. However, Lin and Hsu (2003), Sirri et al. (2009), and Symeon et al. (2010, 2012) found that caponiza-tion decreases a∗value, increasing the L∗and b∗values, contradicting results observed in this study, which can be explained by a lower level of pigments observed in capons (Sirri et al.,2009). Volk et al. (2011) noted that caponization increases L∗ value in capon meat and de-creases a∗ but found no differences for the b∗ value. From this analysis it appears that castration can affect the characteristics of muscles and these can be due to a larger fraction of red fibers, as well as increased pig-ments in muscle, which gives a darker red color. Accord-ing to Hsu and Lin (2003) and Miguel et al. (2008), a decreased a∗in capons must be attributed to the higher percentage of intramuscular fat (IMF) in capon meat, causing fat deposition and a proportional reduction of blood vessels and, therefore, the meat a∗, also resulting in brighter meat (greater L∗values).
It has been reported that breed is a factor that affects poultry meat color (Fletcher,2002). In our experiment, Pedrˆes showed higher (P≤ 0.001) L∗and b∗but smaller (P ≤ 0.001) a∗ than Amarela meat. Wattanachant et al. (2004) have reported an increase in L∗, a∗, and b∗ values in indigenous breed chickens as compared with broilers of a similar weight. Also Castellini et al. (2002) observed greater L∗ and b∗ in organic broilers relative to broilers but no difference for a∗value. Regarding H∗ and C∗ values (Table2), it is verified that capon meat presented smaller H∗ value (45.90 vs 18.33) and higher C∗ (55.79 vs 15.72), boasting, therefore, a more vivid color in relation to rooster meat; the same is observed for the Amarela in relation to the Pedrˆes breed (37.45 vs 62.83; 19.36 vs 14.97 for H∗and C∗, respectively). These results suggest that cock meat can present greater
Table 3. Effect of sex and breed on fatty acid profile of chicken meat intramuscular fat.
Sex (S) Breed (B) Significance
Item1 Capons (n = 20) Roosters (n = 20) Amarela (n = 20) Pedrˆes (n = 20) SEM S B S∗B
C4:0 1.04 1.35 1.44 0.96 0.04 ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗ C8:0 3.41 4.27 3.86 3.79 0.11 ∗∗ NS NS C12:0 0.62 0.62 0.59 0.64 0.03 NS NS NS C14:0 4.80 4.27 4.72 4.39 0.22 NS NS NS C16:0 18.2 17.9 18.2 17.9 0.14 NS NS NS C16:1 5.11 4.69 4.55 5.24 0.13 NS ∗ NS C18:0 4.40 5.03 4.20 5.16 0.07 ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ C18:1 28.1 26.2 26.6 27.7 0.33 ∗ NS NS C18:2 12.5 12.1 12.0 12.6 0.18 NS NS NS C20:4 0.48 0.89 0.45 0.89 0.06 ∗ ∗ ∗ SFA 32.5 33.4 33.0 32.8 0.22 NS NS NS MUFA 33.2 30.9 31.2 32.9 0.43 ∗ NS NS PUFA 12.9 13.0 12.4 13.5 0.19 NS NS NS PUFA/SFA 1.04 0.94 0.96 1.03 0.02 ∗ NS NS UFA/SFA 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.01 NS ∗ NS
1C4:0 = butyric acid; C8:0 = caprylic acid; C12:0 = lauric acid; C14:0 = myristic acid; C16:0 = palmitic acid; C16:1 = palmitoleic
acid; C18:0 = stearic acid; C18:1 = oleic acid; C18:2 = linoleic acid; C20:4 = arachidonic acid; SFA = saturated fatty acids; MUFA = mo-nounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acids; UFA = unsaturated fatty acids; NS = not significant;∗ = P≤ 0.05; ∗∗= P≤ 0.01;∗∗∗= P≤ 0.001.
oxidation of pigments (greater H∗) and smaller quantity of pigments (lower C∗) compared to capon; the same is observed for Pedrˆes in relation to the Amarela breed.
Table2shows the meat chemical composition. Capon meat showed lower (P ≤ 0.05) moisture content than rooster as described in the research by Sirri et al. (2009) and Lin et al. (2011). However, Miguel et al. (2008) and Volk et al. (2011) reported that castration had no ef-fect on moisture content. Miguel et al. (2008) found that there were no differences between sexes in rela-tion to ash content, whereas Sirri et al. (2009) reg-istered that caponization increased its content, which was also found in the present work. Caponization had no effect in protein content in agreement with Miguel et al. (2008), Sirri et al. (2009), and Volk et al. (2011), with average values of 22%. Lin et al. (2011) observed that moisture and ash content was lower in capon meat, but found no differences for protein content. Sirri et al. (2009) found that caponization decreased pigment con-tent, which was not found in this study.
Castrated chickens showed greater IMF content in contrast with the majority of the literature reported by several authors (Tor et al., 2002, 2005; Miguel et al.,2008; Sirri et al.,2009; Symeon et al.,2010,2012; Lin et al., 2011; and Sinanoglou et al., 2011 in breast meat), confirming the increase of intramuscular fat con-tent in capon meat. Nevertheless, Volk et al. (2011) have found no differences in IMF content between cocks and capons.
Amarela showed greater (P ≤ 0.001) moisture and ash content, and smaller (P≤ 0.05) haem pigments and IMF content than Pedrˆes, but no differences were found between breeds for protein, hydroxyproline, and colla-gen content. Castellini et al. (2002) and Wattanachant et al. (2004) reported differences for moisture, ash, and IMF content (broiler vs. organic broiler and Thai in-digenous vs. broiler, respectively).
However, Castellini et al. (2002) observed no differ-ence for protein content, and verified higher value for
pigments in organic broilers. Wattanachant et al. (2004) observed greater protein and collagen content in Thai indigenous than broilers. Souza et al. (2011) observed differences between strains (Super Pesad˜ao and Para´ıso Pedrˆes vs. Cobb) for moisture content, but no noted dif-ferences for ash, protein, and ether extract content. Sig-nificant interactions between sex and breed indicated bigger differences for a∗, b∗, H∗, and ash between roost-ers and capons in the Amarela breed than in Pedrˆes.
Fatty Acid Composition
The effect of sex and breed on the fatty acid profile of chicken meat IMF is shown in Table3. Roosters had higher (P≤ 0.01) butyric acid content (C4:0), caprylic acid (C8:0), and stearic acid (C18:0) and greater (P ≤ 0.05) arachidonic acid (C20:4) than capons, but no significant differences were found for total SFA, PUFA, and UFA/SFA content. Roosters had smaller (P≤ 0.05) oleic acid (C18:1) and MUFA content than capons, improving (P ≤ 0.05) the relationship of PUFA/SFA in capon meat in comparison to rooster. The ratio PUFA/SFA was higher (P≤ 0.05) in capons than roost-ers. Sirri et al. (2009), studying the effect of caponiza-tion on hybrid animals, did not find differences be-tween MUFA and PUFA content, but observed greater SFA content in capon meat. Also, Sinanoglou et al. (2011) reported a lower value of MUFA, PUFA, and ratio PUFA/SFA in capon meat, but greater SFA con-tent than rooster meat, evidencing the negative effect of caponization on the fatty acids profile. The value obtained in the present study for ratio PUFA/SFA was greater than found by Sinanoglou et al. (2011) studying caponization in medium-growth broilers.
The Pedrˆes breed had smaller (P ≤ 0.001) C4:0 content, but higher (P ≤ 0.001) C18:0 content and (P≤ 0.05) palmitoleic acid (C16:1) and C20:4 content than Amarela (Table 3). This fact explains the greater
Table 4. Procrustes analysis of variance for chicken meat sensory
analysis.
Source df ss1 MS Prob>F
Residuals after scaling transformation 32 23.9 0.748
Scaling transformation 8 9.5 1.18 0.170
Residuals after rotation 40 33.4 0.84
Rotation 360 68.1 0.189 1.000
Residuals after translation 400 101.5 0.254
Translation 80 470.3 5.88 <0.0001
Corrected total 480 571.7 1.19
1ss = Sum of squares.
(P ≤ 0.05) value for UFA/SFA ratio observed in the Pedrˆes breed in relation to Amarela. However, Wat-tanachant et al. (2004) reported differences in SFA (greater Thai indigenous) and PUFA content (greater broiler) between broiler and Thai indigenous breeds, but no differences for MUFA content. Also, Castellini et al. (2002) observed higher SFA and PUFA content in organic broilers, but lower MUFA content in organic broilers than in inorganic broilers. According to Enser et al. (1998) the British Department of Health considers as the minimum value for a healthy diet a PUFA/SFA ratio of 0.45. The values observed in this study were greater than the recommended.
Ten individual fatty acids were detected on meat independently of sex and breed (Table 3). The main fatty acids detected were C18:1, palmitic acid (C16:0), and linoleic acid (C18:2), according Sinanoglou et al. (2011) when studying the effect of caponization on medium-growth broilers. However, Miguel et al. (2008) reported that between cocks and capons of the Castel-lana Negra breed, C18:2 was principal, followed by C16:0 and C18:1. Wattanchant et al. (2004) observed that in broiler meat the predominant fatty acids were C18:1, C16:0, C18:0, and C18:2, whereas for the Thai indigenous breed the fatty acids were C16:0 followed the C18:1, C18:0, and C18:2.
Sensory Analysis
The taste panel used 10 attributes (odor intensity, off-odor intensity, color, toughness, juiciness, fibrous-ness, taste intensity, off-taste intensity, flavor inten-sity, and off-flavor intensity) to describe the differences among the different groups of animals (Amarela capon, Amarela rooster, Pedrˆes capon, Pedrˆes rooster, free-range chicken, and broiler).
Table 4 refers to the Procrustes analysis of vari-ance (PANOVA) for chicken meat sensory analysis. The PANOVA table summarizes the efficiency of each GPA transformation in terms of reduction of the to-tal variability, showing that the translation step (P
<0.0001) was highly efficient in reducing the variabil-ity of settings; all other parameters were not significant (P>0.05).
Residuals by groups of chicken (Figure1) showed that broilers had the lowest value followed by the Amarela capon and free-range chickens, indicating the
great-Figure 1. Residual variance for each meat sample (group of
chick-ens) for sensory analysis. AR (Amarela rooster); AC (Amarela capon);
PR (Pedrˆes rooster); PC (Pedrˆes capon); FRC (free-range chicken). Table 5. Residual variance, scaling factors, and percentage
vari-ation explained by the first 2 principal components for each as-sessor for each chicken meat group sensory analysis.
Assessor Residual Scaling factor F11(%) F22(%) F33(%)
1 2.28 1.13 49.3 22.6 5.15 2 2.83 1.08 62.3 10.0 10.9 3 2.37 1.05 48.5 22.4 12.6 4 1.58 1.33 49.0 13.1 23.0 5 2.77 1.06 36.2 21.0 26.7 6 2.94 0.767 73.0 6.21 5.96 7 3.82 0.68 36.9 24.7 21.4 8 1.76 1.72 54.7 23.9 6.37 9 3.61 1.01 70.7 5.65 12.27
1F1 = First principal component of Generalized Procrustes analysis
(GPA).
2F2 = Second principal component of GPA). 3F3 = Third principal component of GPA.
est consensus among evaluators, whereas the Pedrˆes rooster (greatest residue) showed the lowest consensus. The training period allowed the assessors to stan-dardize evaluation methodology. However, no training can eliminate the variation among panelists (Stone and Sidel, 2004). Assessors 7 and 9 presented the greater residue, which means that their evaluations do not match the consensus (Table5). Some panelists did not use the scale for evaluation of the attributes the same way, whereas some focused on a narrower part of the scale; others used a wider part, as can be observed in the scaling factors shown in Table5. Assessors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 tended to use a wider scale than the other assessors because they presented scaling factors greater than 1, especially assessor 4.
The next results correspond to the Principal Com-ponent analysis (PCA) step (unstandardized PCA, Addinsoft,2013b). Whereas the GPA already includes a rotation step for each configuration so that it matches the consensus configuration, the PCA corresponds here to the optimal transformation of the consensus config-uration under the usual PCA constraints. The PCA transformation is then applied to each configuration corresponding to each assessor. The eigenvalues show how much of the variability corresponds to each axis
Figure 2. Consensus configuration: joint representation of correlation between sensory traits and first 2 dimensions and groups of chicken meat
coordinates for different groups of chicken sensory analysis. F1 = first principal component of Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA); F2 = second principal component of GPA; AR (Amarela rooster); AC (Amarela capon); PR (Pedrˆes rooster); PC (Pedrˆes capon); FRC (free-range chicken).
(Table 5). The first dimension explains 55.2% of the variability and the second 15.9%. Only the first 2 axes represent 71.1% of the total variability; a similar value (72.8%) was described by Rodrigues and Teix-eira (2013) in Terrincho lamb. However, the value ob-tained in the present study is greater than the 68.2% registered by Rodrigues et al. (2009) in Terrincho lamb meat, but less than the 93% found by Rodrigues and Teixeira (2009) in fresh Serrano meat of young goats; Paulos et al. (2015), reported 86.2% of the variabil-ity in the first 2 axes, in fresh sausage manufactured with goat and sheep meat, and Rodrigues and Teixeira (2014) verified 83.6% in pork meat.
When the variability is divided by assessors (Table5), it is noted that the results are consensual among all the panelists except 5 and 7, who show less variability for Factor 1. Assessor 7 presents greater variability for Factor 2, whereas assessor 5 shows greatest variability for Factor 3. To minimize differences among evaluators, GPA was used to obtain a consensus (Figure 2). As previously noted, the first 2 main axes of the consen-sus configuration represent 71.1% of the total variation among samples. The points are all near the first Carte-sian axes, explaining the fact that 55.2% of variability is concentrated in the first dimension.
Two commercial products (free-range chickens and broilers) with widespread consumption were used to compare with capons in terms of sensory analysis and to determine the response of panelists comparing capon meat with commercial chicken meats. The different groups of chickens were clearly discriminated and iden-tified by the panelists. Broiler evaluation is clearly dif-ferent from the other groups. In relation to off-flavor
and off-taste intensity, these attributes are related to the Pedrˆes breed. Regarding the juiciness characteris-tic, it was observed that the broiler obtained the high-est value on the intensity scale. Analyzing the Amarela rooster, it was verified that it has the least juiciness, compared to the other groups of animals. Rooster meat is characterized by presenting the greatest toughness and fibrousness. It was observed that the Pedrˆes rooster and Pedrˆes capon are closer, as well as the Amarela capon and free-range chicken meant. Broiler meat had the highest juiciness and lowest toughness and fibrous-ness (Figure 2). The Amarela capon had the greatest color intensity, once the vectors are directly correlated to the coordinates of the Amarela capon. The results of sensory analysis showed that caponization improved sensory characteristics for the Amarela breed; however, in the Pedrˆes breed this effect showed little evidence. The sensory characteristics of Pedrˆes rooster and capon meat for the attributes of juiciness, toughness, and fi-brousness were similar to free-range chicken meat, par-ticularly the Pedrˆes capon even though capons were 60 d older.
In a sensory analysis performed by Muriel (2004), no differences were observed between roosters and capons for toughness, juiciness, and flavor, contrary to the present study. Miguel et al. (2008), for the native breed Castellana Negra, found that capons were juicier and less fibrous than cocks, which might be due to the greater fat content in the capon. According to Lin and Hsu (2013), capon meat (Taiwan native) features more juiciness and flavor, and more tenderness in capon breast than rooster. Calik et al. 2015 observed that caponization (native Greenleg partridge) improved the
sensory characteristics for leg meat; however, breast meat improved only the flavor attribute. Caponization has improved the lipid profile and sensory character-istics of meat, making it juicier, tenderer, and less fi-brous, improving capon meat quality when compared with rooster meat raised under the same production system. The results showed that the panelists discrimi-nated different meat origins and distinguished the qual-ity attributes of the capons in comparison to free-range chickens and broilers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Laboratory of Carcass and Meat Quality of Agriculture School of Polytechnic Institute of Bragan¸ca ‘Cantinho do Alfredo’.
REFERENCES
Addinsoft, 2013a – XLSTAT, Generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA). Accessed May 2013. https://help.xlstat.com/customer/ en/portal/articles/2062250-running-a-generalized-procrustes-analysis-gpa-with-xlstat?b id=9283.
Addinsoft, 2013b – XLSTAT, Procrustes Component analysis (PCA). Accessed May 2013. https://help.xlstat.com/customer/ en/portal/articles/2062222-principal-component-analysis-in-excel-pca-tutorial.
AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
Calik, J., K. Poltowicz, S. ´Swiatkiewicz, J. Krawczyk, and J. Nowak. 2015. Effect of caponization on meat quality of Greenleg Partridge cockerels. Ann. Anim. Sci. 15:541–553.
Castellini, C., C. Mugnai, and A. Dal Bosco. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 60:219–225.
Chen, K. L., C. P. Wu, and Y. M. Hong. 2000. Meal quality and carcass traits of capon in comparison with intact male and female Taiwan country chickens. J. Chin. Soc. Anim. Sci. 29:77–78. Chen, K. L., W. T. Chi, and P. W. Chiou. 2005. Caponization and
testosterone implantation effects on blood lipid and lipoprotein profile in male chickens. Poult. Sci. 84:547–552.
CIE, 1986. Colorimetry, 2nd ed. Commission Internationale de L’Eclairage, CIE Publications No 15.2, Vienna, Austria. Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November (European
Commu-nity), 1986. Official Journal L 358:0001–0028.
DGAV, 2013. Ra¸cas Aut´octones Portuguesas. Dire¸c˜ao Geral de Ali-menta¸c˜ao e Veterin´aria (DGAV) Publ., Lisbon Portugal. D´ıaz, O., L. Rodr´ıguez, A. Torres, and A. Cobos. 2010. Chemical
composition and physico-chemical properties of meat from capons as affected by breed and age. Span. J. Agric. Res. 8:91–99. Enser, M., K. G. Hallett, B. Hewett, G. A. J. Fursey, J. D. Wood,
and G. Harrinhton. 1998. Fatty acid content and composition of UK beef and lamb muscle in relation to production system and implications for human nutrition. Meat Sci. 49:329–341. Fletcher, D. L. 2002. Poultry meat quality. World’s Poult. Sci. J.
58:131–145.
Hornsey, H. C. 1956. The colour of cooked cured pork. I-Estimation of the nitric oxide-haem pigments. J. Sci. Food Agric. 7:534–540. Lin, C. Y., and J. C. Hsu. 2002. Effects of surgical caponization on growth performance, fiber diameter and some physical properties of muscles in Taiwan country chicken cockerels. Asian-austral. J. Anim. Sci. 15:401–405.
Lin, C. Y., and J. C. Hsu. 2003. Influence of caponization on the car-cass characteristics in Taiwan country chicken cockerels. Asian-austral. J. Anim. Sci. 16:575–580.
Lin, C., L. Lin, and J. C. Hsu. 2011. Effect of caponization on mus-cle composition, shear value, ATP related compounds and taste appraisal in Taiwan country chicken cockerels. Asian-austral. J. Anim. Sci. 24:1026–1030.
Lin, C. Y., and J. C. Hsu. 2013. Comparison of skin and muscle color, muscle composition and sensory panel score of capon, slip and intact birds in Taiwan country chicken cockerels. J. Taiwan Livestock Res. 46:187–194.
Miguel, J. A., J. Ciria, B. Asenjo, and J. L. Calvo. 2008. Effect of caponisation on growth and on carcass and meat characteris-tics in Castellana Negra native Spanish chickens. Animal. 2:305– 311.
Muriel, A. 2004. The effect of caponization on production indices and carcass and meat characteristics in free-range Extreme˜na Azul chickens. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2:211–216.
NP 1612–2002 (ISO 937:1978). Portuguese Norm - Meat and meat products. Determination of total nitrogen content. Reference method. Portuguese Institute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Innovation, Caparica, Portugal.
NP 1614–2002 (ISO 1442:1197). Portuguese Norm - Meat and meat products. Determination of moisture content. Reference method. Portuguese Institute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Inno-vation, Caparica, Portugal.
NP 1615–2002 (ISO 936:1998). Portuguese Norm - Meat and meat products. Determination of total ash. Reference method. Por-tuguese Institute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Innova-tion, Caparica, Portugal.
NP 3441-2008 (ISO 2917:1999). Portuguese Norm - Meat and meat products. Measurement of pH. Reference method. Portuguese In-stitute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Innovation, Caparica, Portugal.
NP 1987–2002 (ISO 3496:1994). Portuguese Norm - Meat and meat products. Determination of hydroxyproline content. Reference method. Portuguese Institute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Innovation, Caparica, Portugal.
NP-ISO-8586-1, 2001 (ISO 8586-1:1993). Portuguese Norm - Sensory analysis. General guidance of the selection, training and monitor-ing of assessors. Part 1: selected assessors. Portuguese Institute of Quality, Ministry of Economy and Innovation, Caparica, Por-tugal.
Paulos, K., S. Rodrigues, A. F. Oliveira, A. Leite, E. Pereira, and A. Teixeira. 2015. Sensory characterization and consumer preference mapping of fresh sausages manufactured with goat and sheep meat. J. Food Sci. 80:1568–1573.
Qiao, M., D. L. Fletcher, J. K. Northcutt, and D. P. Smith. 2002. The relationship between raw broiler breast meat color and com-position. Poult. Sci. 81:422–427.
Rodrigues, S., E. Pereira, S. Silva, V. Santos, J. Azevedo, and A. Teixeira. 2009. Avalia¸c˜ao da qualidade sensorial de carne de bor-rego Terrincho. Efeito do sexo e do peso da carca¸ca. In Conference Proceedings: XVIII Congresso de Zootecnia. Vila Real - Portu-gal. Pp. 310–314. Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real.
Rodrigues, S., and A. Teixeira. 2009. Effect of sex and carcass weight on sensory quality of goat meat of Cabrito Transmontano. J. Anim. Sci. 87:711–715.
Rodrigues, S., and A. Teixeira. 2013. Use of generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) to test the effects of sex and carcass weight on sensory quality evaluations of Terrincho lamb meat. Meat Sci. 93:485–488.
Rodrigues, S., and A. Teixeira. 2014. Effect of breed and sex on pork meat sensory evaluation. Food & Nutr. Sci. 5:599–605.
Sinanoglou, V. J., F. Mantis, S. Miniadis-Meimaroglou, G. K. Symeon, and I. A. Bizelis. 2011. Effects of caponisation on lipid and fatty acid composition of intramuscular and ab-dominal fat of medium-growth broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 52: 310–317.
Sirri, F., M. Bianchi, M. Petracci, and A. Meluzzi. 2009. Influence of partial and complete caponization on chicken meat quality. Poult. Sci. 88:1466–1473.
Souza, X. R., P. B. Faria, and M. C. Bressan. 2011. Proximate com-position and meat quality of broilers reared under different pro-duction systems. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 13:15–20.
Stone, H., and J. L Sidel. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Third Edition Elsevier Academic Press. San Diego, California, USA.
Symeon, G. K., F. Mantis, I. Bizelis, A. Kominakis, and E. Rog-dakis. 2010. Effects of caponization on growth performance,
carcass composition, and meat quality of medium growth broilers. Poult. Sci. 89:1481–1489.
Symeon, G. K., F. Mantis, I. Bizelis, A. Kominakis, and E. Rog-dakis. 2012. Effects of caponization on growth performance, car-cass composition, and meat quality of males of a layer line. Ani-mal. 6:2023–2030.
Teixeira, A., and S. Rodrigues. 2013. Pork meat quality of Preto Alentejano and commercial Largewhite Landrace cross. J. Integr. Agric. 12:1961–1971.
Tor, M., J. Estany, A. Francesch, and M. D. Cubil´o. 2005. Com-parison of fatty acid profiles of edible meat, adipose tissues and muscles between cocks and capons. Anim. Res. 54:413–424.
Tor, M., J. Estany, D. Villalba, E. Molina, and M. D. Cubil´o. 2002. Comparison of carcass composition by parts and tissues between cocks and capons. Anim. Res. 51:421–431.
Volk, M., J. Malensˆek, M. Prevolnik, B. ˇSkrlep, M. ˇCandek-Potokar, and M. Bavec. 2011. Differences in carcass and meat quality be-tween organically reared cocks and capons. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 76: 153–155.
Wattanachant, S., S. Benjakul, and D. A. Ledward. 2004. Compo-sition, color, and texture of Thai Indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poult. Sci. 83:123–128.
Webb, E. C., and H. A. O’Neill. 2008. The animal fat paradox and meat quality. Meat Sci. 80:28–36.
